SSDT Decision: Siobhan Sullivan

SCOTTISH SOLICITORS’ DISCPLINE TRIBUNAL

JLSS REPORT

LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND-v-SIOBHAN SULLIVAN

A Complaint was lodged by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Siobhan Sullivan, Solicitor, Glasgow. The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo in respect that, in a period of time before 2016, she:- (i) abandoned or settled actions without instructions from the relevant clients to do so; (ii) misled clients regarding the outcome of actions raised on their behalf, including informing clients that their actions had been successful when this was incorrect; (iii) diverted judicial expenses, payable to her employer firm, to pay both fictitious sums of damages to clients and fictitious fees due to the firm, and to meet the expenses of defenders in abandoned actions; (iv) used monies properly due to clients inappropriately in that, having wrongly assumed a cheque was received for expenses, which in fact it was for damages, she had banked these monies to the wrong client account; (v) used monies properly due to clients inappropriately in that, having wrongly assumed a cheque was for expenses, which in fact it was for damages, she banked these monties to the wrong client account; (vi) used monies properly due to clients inappropriately in that, having received a payment by BACS transfer which was to cover both damages and expenses, she banked the money to the wrong client account; (vii) created false entries in the firm’s case management system, including false time records, false letters purporting to chase expenses, and false work in progress entries in order to facilitate her deception; and misled colleagues in relation to her actions, including a partner of the firm, her line manager and cash room staff, in order to facilitate her deception.

The Respondent’s acts of dishonesty persisted for a period of eight years. The Tribunal considered that the individual averments of misconduct were so interconnected that they should be treated as a course of conduct. Honesty is a fundamental and underpinning obligation of the profession. The Tribunal found the Tribunal guilty of professional misconduct involving extensive dishonesty. While the Tribunal accepted that the Respondent made no direct financial gains from her conduct, the dishonesty involved in this case was prolonged and repeated. In the circumstances, the Tribunal determined that the only possible sanction was to strike the name of the Respondent from the Roll of Solicitors.